I'm not a fan of anything which was kept so private...
OMG... The FCC is going to boil frogs with this ruling! (well, I guess they could, because we don't know what was passed.... yuck.... wrong species of frog and I would rather have the legs fried)
This about this....when you make a phone call to your local NAPA, but your phone company has a deal with Autozone and redirects your call to them instead. Or they limit your call to Napa by routing it through India and back, causing quality and lag issues. Or maybe your local phone company doesn't even allow you to call NAPA. Autozone paid your phone company for the right to do so.
Now, without net neutrality, the same thing could happen. Anytime you try to visit NAPA online, you are routed to Autozone, or the page loads so slow that you just give up, because NAPA wouldn't pay to have the same level of accessibility through your internet provider. Of course, there is nothing you can do, because in your contact, you agreed to this as you will only be able to access the information the ISP deems profitable. Goodbye to small online businesses, you will never have a chance, as the big companies will buy up all the access.
Or you can't get Netflix because comcast already offers that content. Or get a call from a competing phone service.
But I agree there will be collateral damage. Always is.
The ISPs asked for this, plain and simple. If they would have followed the FCC's Net Neutrality guide this would not have happened. The ISPs saw an opportunity for more money and challenged the FCC in court and won. Now you get this ruling which opens up a whole new can of worms.
I'm just wondering how long before we have to start paying more for less, while Big Brother monitors every bit of it, and legally this time.
Do you really know what you're talking about, or are you parroting media nonsense you've heard? Changing to Title II prohibits inequitable distribution of bandwidth. E.g., Comcast cannot slow down Netflix in favor of its own streaming video service. Further, they cannot "double-dip" the charging. One thing some internet providers have been championing is the increased charge to website connections for their customers going to a popular website - they've wanted to charge those websites more. Now they can't. Further, Title II regulation does not limit privacy any more than it did previously. Moreover, recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed fourth amendment restrictions are the monitoring of data from citizens. The media you've been listening have been lying or have been willfully ignorant of the facts.
You won't be getting less. In the absence of network neutrality, you would.
To others, regarding the inability to read the pending administrative rulings. This is status quo. Administrative law generally is not up for public comment until a specific notice and comment period pursuant to § 553, § 556, §557 and §558 of administrative law. The period for public comment on the potential legislation has long since expired. If you're interested, you may see this at http://www.regulations.gov/ Remember, we're not a democracy - we're a republic. You don't get to have your input on every piece of legislation. Thats what your elected representatives do. Don't like something, write your representatives.
Disclosure: I'm a lawyer with a specialty in technology. I'm also a lifetime member of the republican party.
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 02-26-2015).]
Do you really know what you're talking about, or are you parroting media nonsense you've heard? Changing to Title II prohibits inequitable distribution of bandwidth. E.g., Comcast cannot slow down Netflix in favor of its own streaming video service. Further, they cannot "double-dip" the charging. One thing some internet providers have been championing is the increased charge to website connections for their customers going to a popular website - they've wanted to charge those websites more. Now they can't. Further, Title II regulation does not limit privacy any more than it did previously. Moreover, recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed fourth amendment restrictions are the monitoring of data from citizens. The media you've been listening have been lying or have been willfully ignorant of the facts.
You won't be getting less. In the absence of network neutrality, you would.
To others, regarding the inability to read the pending administrative rulings. This is status quo. Administrative law generally is not up for public comment until a specific notice and comment period pursuant to § 553, § 556, §557 and §558 of administrative law. The period for public comment on the potential legislation has long since expired. If you're interested, you may see this at http://www.regulations.gov/ Remember, we're not a democracy - we're a republic. You don't get to have your input on every piece of legislation. Thats what your elected representatives do. Don't like something, write your representatives.
Disclosure: I'm a lawyer with a specialty in technology. I'm also a lifetime member of the republican party.
Title II regulation does not limit privacy any more than it did previously. Moreover, recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed fourth amendment restrictions are the monitoring of data from citizens. The media you've been listening have been lying or have been willfully ignorant of the facts.
Hmmmm.... NSA.... Snowden anyone? With 332 pages I'm sure the left has no intentions of choking out the voices of conservatism within it right? Don't be surprised when you go to google 'the US constitution" and your redirected to Karl Marx's "communist manifesto. They already own the media and now the internet...Don't think the whole thing was really just about bandwidth, usage and the companies that own the pipes to make everything all fair. I would believe it would be a hell of a lot less than 332 pages if that were the case. Don't forget the most valuable document which the left constantly defecates on (The Constitution) was 4 pages and straight to the point. With that kind of novel it is obvious there is something up the sleeve of the left. Healthcare, check. Internet, check. And now most recently.... executive decision to ban the .223 round. If you think that will stop there then you need a reality check. They will ban every round to every gun making them useless. State controlled media, state controlled internet and no way to defend yourself. Stalin would be proud.
Hmmmm.... NSA.... Snowden anyone? With 332 pages I'm sure the left has no intentions of choking out the voices of conservatism within it right? Don't be surprised when you go to google 'the US constitution" and your redirected to Karl Marx's "communist manifesto. They already own the media and now the internet...Don't think the whole thing was really just about bandwidth, usage and the companies that own the pipes to make everything all fair. I would believe it would be a hell of a lot less than 332 pages if that were the case. Don't forget the most valuable document which the left constantly defecates on (The Constitution) was 4 pages and straight to the point. With that kind of novel it is obvious there is something up the sleeve of the left. Healthcare, check. Internet, check. And now most recently.... executive decision to ban the .223 round. If you think that will stop there then you need a reality check. They will ban every round to every gun making them useless. State controlled media, state controlled internet and no way to defend yourself. Stalin would be proud.
Obviously you've never read anything relating to federal regulation. Merely designating a national day a holiday for whatever purpose requires an act bordering on 30+ pages. 332 is perfectly reasonable. Faux news would have you believe it to not be the case. The constitution was not straight to the point, were it so, my constitutional law case book during my 1L year would only be a few pages. Instead it was a good 800+ pages full of cherry-picked cases ranging from Marbury v. Madison to Morse v. Frederickson. The constitution is constantly being interpreted and debated. To the point it is not. See e.g, (5th & 6th Amendment clauses relating to Miranda) See also (4th amendment issues relating to Roe v Wade as applied to the states via the 14th amendment).
While you may think you understand jurisprudence or the legislative process, the reality is you don't. Comments above are what is wrong with the political process from both sides. Individuals think they understand whats going on, they fiercely stick to one side regardless of the facts. Their representatives tap into that ignorance, and feed the fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and capitalize upon it to win reelection.
Don't be a partisan lemming.
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 02-26-2015).]
Do you really know what you're talking about, or are you parroting media nonsense you've heard?
I've heard very little about this on any media. Mostly I'm going on past experience of how the government screws up everything they touch.
quote
I'm a lawyer with a specialty in technology. I'm also a lifetime member of the republican party.
^ Again, Except that the Republican party went too far to the Left for my satisfaction. I departed and joined the Constitution Party when GW was still Prez, although I'm not very active with them.
Oops. I haven't updated my profile. I moved from Tallahassee in 2009 after graduate school. In Denver now, dealing with too much snow the past few days.
Originally posted by ArbinShire: Disclosure: I'm a lawyer with a specialty in technology. I'm also a lifetime member of the republican party.
Looky here fellas. We have a bona fide lawyer, giving his legal opinion on 332 pages of federal regulations he has not seen, .
quote
Originally posted by ArbinShire: Comments above are what is wrong with the political process from both sides. Individuals think they understand whats going on, they fiercely stick to one side regardless of the facts. Their representatives tap into that ignorance, and feed the fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and capitalize upon it to win reelection. Don't be a partisan lemming.
Individuals think they know what's going on ? Tell me. What am I missing ? 332 pages sealed from the public ? We have to pass this crap to see what's in it, is what's going on. All the while they claim that we have had input for a whole year.
Originally posted by cliffw:Looky here fellas. We have a bona fide lawyer, giving his legal opinion on 332 pages of federal regulations he has not seen, .
Suddenly it feels like I've just been thrown into the movie, "Deliverance." And no, I'm not giving you my legal opinion on anything.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Individuals think they know what's going on ? Tell me. What am I missing ? 332 pages sealed from the public ? We have to pass this crap to see what's in it, is what's going on. All the while they claim that we have had input for a whole year.
Pursuant to Administrative law and established case law, the rules when released will conform to the guidelines found on regulations.gov. Should they differ substantially, they would be violative of the notice and comment period, related case law and would be thrown out in court. Should you want a summary of whats going to be in the released rules, you may look here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_...tch/DOC-327104A1.pdf
The rules aren't sealed from the public. They haven't been released as there is still editing and revisions to be done. This again, contrary to popular and incorrect opinion, is status quo for administrative law.
When has additional government regulation ever led to better service at a lower price?
This isn't additional regulation, rather, it is a reclassification from Title I to Title II of the Telecommunications Act. In brief summary, it changes the Internet from a "Nice to have" to an essential utility.
quote
Originally posted by 2tone86gt:
When you are being told what to do and how to do it at the end of a gun we shall see who the lemmings are...
Thats cute. Do you subscribe to the Sovereign Citizen movement too?
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 02-26-2015).]
Answer: if you like you health care plan you can keep your health care plan
I still have my health plan. My mother has her health plan, and funny enough, she now gets coverage for a pre-existing condition which had been denied for years.
Thats cute. Do you subscribe to the Sovereign Citizen movement too?
No I just believe in freedom and the right to uphold the constitution when necessary since the republicans won't do anything... People like you that would prefer the "total transformation of the US" need to get the hell out of this country go move in next door to Kim Jon- un and make best of buds. There's plenty of places outside of the United States that adopt the nanny state way of life... best part is all the hard work is already done
This isn't additional regulation, rather, it is a reclassification from Title I to Title II of the Telecommunications Act. In brief summary, it changes the Internet from a "Nice to have" to an essential utility.
Which takes it from being a mostly unregulated service to a fairly heavily regulated service. Which would constitute additional regulation. They are alegedly adding regulations about how Qos rules on networks can be configured among other things (I say allegedly because we dont really know what new regulations are in the 322 page document)
Which takes it from being a mostly unregulated service to a fairly heavily regulated service. Which would constitute additional regulation. They are alegedly adding regulations about how Qos rules on networks can be configured among other things (I say allegedly because we dont really know what new regulations are in the 322 page document)
I
Correct. Title II regulations, however, are fairly known and are intended to provide equitable distribution of services. They do this by restricting capitalistic goals in exchange for allowing for some monopolistic tendencies (Bell companies for instance). The quality of service regulation is one where ISP's were trying to say they were merely providing better service for XYZ (who had just so happened to pay their fee to do so) because of traffic needs. Now, the regulation (and verified with those whom I know who do know) intends to restrict that. They have to provide 1gb of service if that is the service which is paid for. Additionally, they can't play latency games either by artificially restricting one site load faster than another.
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 02-26-2015).]
I still have my health plan. My mother has her health plan, and funny enough, she now gets coverage for a pre-existing condition which had been denied for years.
Yes you have it for now...You completely miss the point that it was implemented to destroy private insurance companies. It was designed to put them all out of business eventually so everyone has to get it from the government. No offense but I see nowhere in the bill of rights where health care is a right.
No I just believe in freedom and the right to uphold the constitution when necessary since the republicans won't do anything... People like you that would prefer the "total transformation of the US" need to get the hell out of this country go move in next door to Kim Jon- un and make best of buds. There's plenty of places outside of the United States that adopt the nanny state way of life... best part is all the hard work is already done
I absolutely support the constitution. I'm a firm believe in Scalia's philosophy that the Constitution is a dead document that does not evolve. Further, I'm not a believer in a transformation of the United States, nor am I clear as to where I gave you that impression. I do, however, believe that government plays an important part in regulating important services like the internet. I'm marginally old enough to remember the transformation from Arpanet, to a network of academics to the internet we have today. Playing games with the connection and charging disparately between users and content providers is not healthy for the Internet, and thats why I'm completely for increased regulation of connection providers.
With the current regime in charge and all the other things they will be trying to get their hands in I highly doubt that the intentions of internet neutrality is as genuine as they say. Time will tell.
Correct. Title II regulations, however, are fairly known and are intended to provide equitable distribution of services.
Title II regulations are fairly well known as the apply to telephone service. They certainly arent well know as they will apply to internet service and they are certainly not written to be applicable to internet service. It would be much like trying to apply horse and buggy rules and regulations to aircraft.
If the FCC just implements what was discussed in the NPRM I don't think any consumer will have an issue with the ruling but the current providers will fight the ruling. This is only my opinion.
What is a concern is there now are no limits on what the FCC can change in the future.
I posted on page 1 of this discussion Pai's statements in the NPRM are the most disturbing. In this and other NPRM's he describes what can happen in the future if this ruling passes and tries to point out what has not been considered when making these rulings. The comments in his statement describe the future issues.
First on the Title II issue stating the carriers cannot charge higher fees for faster service:"
quote
As the NPRM frankly acknowledges, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act “could not be used” for such a ban.7 And while the NPRM resists saying it outright, neither could Title II. After all, Title II only authorizes the FCC to prohibit “unjust or unreasonable discrimination”8 and both the Commission and the courts have consistently interpreted that provision to allow carriers to charge different prices for different services.9 Indeed, I have been unable to find even a single case in which the Commission found it unlawfully discriminatory to offer a different (faster) service to customers at a different (higher) price."
Second on the possible future regulations now possible
quote
"For another, the legal consequences of moving forward with net-neutrality regulation are sure to wreak havoc on the Internet economy, no matter which legal path we take. If we are to take the D.C. Circuit at its word, section 706 grants the FCC virtually unfettered authority to encourage broadband adoption and deployment.10 So if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would go online if they knew their information would be secure, could we impose cybersecurity and encryption standards on website operators? If three members of the FCC think that more Americans would purchase broadband if edge providers were prohibited from targeted advertising, could we impose Do Not Track regulations? Or if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would use the Internet if there were greater privacy protections, could we follow the European Union and impose right-to-be-forgotten mandates?"
So if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would go online if they knew their information would be secure, could we impose cybersecurity and encryption standards on website operators? If three members of the FCC think that more Americans would purchase broadband if edge providers were prohibited from targeted advertising, could we impose Do Not Track regulations? Or if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would use the Internet if there were greater privacy protections, could we follow the European Union and impose right-to-be-forgotten mandates?"
Oh, I don't think there's much worry there. Americans have learned the hard way that none of their information is secure--govt itself has shown that and govt agencies have already been crying about anyone that wants to encrypt data. There's no way in hades that a govt apponted commission, even tho it is supposed to be independent, is going to now ensure users data is going to be secure when the rest of govt is spending billions of $$ to make sure it is not.
Do you really know what you're talking about, or are you parroting media nonsense you've heard? Changing to Title II prohibits inequitable distribution of bandwidth. E.g., Comcast cannot slow down Netflix in favor of its own streaming video service. Further, they cannot "double-dip" the charging. One thing some internet providers have been championing is the increased charge to website connections for their customers going to a popular website - they've wanted to charge those websites more. Now they can't. Further, Title II regulation does not limit privacy any more than it did previously. Moreover, recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed fourth amendment restrictions are the monitoring of data from citizens. The media you've been listening have been lying or have been willfully ignorant of the facts.
You won't be getting less. In the absence of network neutrality, you would.
To others, regarding the inability to read the pending administrative rulings. This is status quo. Administrative law generally is not up for public comment until a specific notice and comment period pursuant to § 553, § 556, §557 and §558 of administrative law. The period for public comment on the potential legislation has long since expired. If you're interested, you may see this at http://www.regulations.gov/ Remember, we're not a democracy - we're a republic. You don't get to have your input on every piece of legislation. Thats what your elected representatives do. Don't like something, write your representatives.
Disclosure: I'm a lawyer with a specialty in technology. I'm also a lifetime member of the republican party.
A lawyer and a republican with an open mind. I'm not saying that all republicans and lawyers don't but I think that you are going against the trend, Here's a + for you.
I see this whole thing being nothing more than a dog and pony show.. They came down hard on ATT for throttling high data users.. so now they have to look like they care.. then like anything the government touches they add a bunch of crap to a basic thing, like "net neutrality" and why it is 330 pages,give or take.. EVEN if the FCC ruling only said they can not favor a customer, or charge for a fast lane. What is that going to do.. If say Comcast.. makes say 20 billion dollars by offering faster speeds, and carte blanche to bandwidth.. and gets caught.. So, what.. the FCC fines them 500 million.. (just throwing numbers out there) So after the fine Comcast still made 19.5 billion off the practice .. oh, boy that "rule" regulation had teeth... The FCC can shut down Comcast for it, but as seen as cable and internet providers in many areas are the only game in town.. if the FCC did shut them down, people would raise hell. so that's not likely to happen.. and Comcast/time warner/Verizon/etc all know it.. so this is a dog and pony show, to shut up that complained about ATT and others throttling data, and the government seeing this as a great way to take control of another part of the economy.. and the sheep cheering it on..
I missed the end of the other issue, did Obama ever give control to another country, that was in the news last year, never heard the end of that.. and if he was/is able to do that, does the FCC even have any say in the way the internet is handled/controlled..
Regulated the same as a utility--electric power company or gas company, it would be more than a stretch to say "FCC can shut down....". If telecomm is an integral part of basic necessities (I suppose it is) the most FCC would do is fine or break up a big telecomm.
Originally posted by ArbinShire: Suddenly it feels like I've just been thrown into the movie, "Deliverance."
Though not what you meant, we are in exactly the same predicament as Deliverance. We should be very weary of anal probes by our leftist politicians. The radical left controls most of the levers of political and cultural power. Most notably schools and the media. It has long been a goal of theirs to contol another lever. The regulation of free speech. Just like their gun control efforts, contrary to the Second Amendment, it is an never ending endeavor of theirs. Onslaught after onslaught, inch by inch. It is the same with their desires to regulate free speech, contrary to the First Amendment.
Perhaps you are aware of the "Fairness Doctrine". It wanted to (in it's latest reincarnation) silence the conservative view, and has a much storied history. Much of it for forced content, supporting the preferred content of those that objected to the original content. That was the claim, .
It died a free speech death. Not to be deterred, much like radical Islam, the ideology was not defeated. It reincarnated to attack political contributions of which the Supreme Court struck down. The arrogance of the left, led by "our" President, chastised every Supreme Court member for their decision that political contributions were free speech, at a nationally televised highly watched "State of the Union" address. Disgraceful.
Not to be deterred because that failed, they tried to garner support of an amendment to the Constitution to limit free speech rights. Know as Senate Joint Resolution 19.
The leftist controlled Federal Election Commission also tried to halt political content of ... publicly transmitted opinion before elections.
Freedom of speech is a right endowed to us by the Creator. Yet, just a year or so ago, the FCC was pushing to insert "regime" regulators into every news outlet to ensure all media advanced issues the regime determined needed to be advanced. With Federal monitors inside news organizations. They likely would have been called "Critical Information Needs Agents". Is that freedom of speech ? Here is the FCC's required declaration of ending the ambition.
The rules aren't sealed from the public. They haven't been released as there is still editing and revisions to be done. This again, contrary to popular and incorrect opinion, is status quo for administrative law
I'm of the thinking, I don't care if it is "status quo" anything that may effect me, I should be able to see the finished doc's (in this case all 335 ish of them) and when I say finished.. done, no more editing, I should also have enough time to read them, research it all, and have enough time to contact my rep's and they have enough time to get a "feel" of what the people they are representing want, and/or have issue with.. also because this "for our eyes only" status quo admin law.. maybe it's time that status quo, changed..
Though not what you meant, we are in exactly the same predicament as Deliverance. We should be very weary of anal probes by our leftist politicians.
The fairness doctrine was one wherein FCC required broadcast providers to allow time for oppositional views. It is irrelevant to Title II legislation. The rest of your post is rambling, incoherent and irrelevant to Title II.
quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal: I'm of the thinking, I don't care if it is "status quo" anything that may effect me, I should be able to see the finished doc's (in this case all 335 ish of them) and when I say finished.. done, no more editing, I should also have enough time to read them, research it all, and have enough time to contact my rep's and they have enough time to get a "feel" of what the people they are representing want, and/or have issue with.. also because this "for our eyes only" status quo admin law.. maybe it's time that status quo, changed..
Clearly you don't understand how government works. Individual citizen participation in every facet of legislation is impracticable. Try to understand what a republic is. Remember, as I stated above, we are not a true democracy. To put it bluntly, your singular view doesn't matter. Rather, it is the collective view of the representative's constituents that should determine the course and scope of rulemaking and legislation. The FCC acted based upon over 4 million comments submitted when the comment period started.
I'm getting a vibe this arbinshire guy is a rhino republican who has secretly built a shrine in his basement dedicated to the loving memory of Woodrow Wilson...
Originally posted by ArbinShire: The rest of your post is rambling, incoherent and irrelevant to Title II.
The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"
"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.
"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"
"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"
"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...Click to show
Originally posted by ArbinShire: ... Try to understand what a republic is....The FCC acted based upon over 4 million comments submitted when the comment period started.
FYI, the FCC aren't "elected" officials, so you might want to brush up on what a Republic is. Too many of our alphabet soup bureaus have been given the power to interpret and reinterpret the law with such wide latitude that they can essentially create their own law just by writing a letter.
The EPA does this. So does the BATFE and the FCC. It's now how laws are supposed to be created or modified in a Constitutional Republic.
I'm getting a vibe this arbinshire guy is a rhino republican who has secretly built a shrine in his basement dedicated to the loving memory of Woodrow Wilson...
No. Were I use to the derogatory term, Republican in Name Only, I would use the correct acronym. RINO. The former is an animal, the latter is a term thrown out by mouth breathing fellow conservatives when they disagree. If I were to have a presidential shrine of any sort, it would be dedicated to Reagan or Nixon. I am, however, appalled at the modern republican base for parroting varying platforms without fully understanding the issues and instead just using broadcast or online news as their sole source of information.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:FYI, the FCC aren't "elected" officials, so you might want to brush up on what a Republic is.
They're appointed by the President who indirectly has influence upon them. Moreover, they are responsive to popular public opinion (See again http://www.regulations.gov/) wherein they provide a notice and comment period for pending rulemaking.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:Too many of our alphabet soup bureaus have been given the power to interpret and reinterpret the law with such wide latitude that they can essentially create their own law just by writing a letter.
The EPA does this. So does the BATFE and the FCC. It's now how laws are supposed to be created or modified in a Constitutional Republic.[sic]
Thats the entire purpose of Agency Law - They're organizations with a singular purpose dedicated to the achievement of a specified task. In Law School, it was taught to be "the fourth branch of government." (Fyi, BATFE isn't an agency. Its a law enforcement organization.) Agencies have their own systems for appeal, and their own courts which are appealable to non-ALJ headed courts.
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 03-01-2015).]
.
